7/7 anniversary: Islamophobia and the London bombings, one decade on

​A decade after a group of Islamist suicide bombers attacked London’s transport network, leaving 52 people dead, RT’s Poppy Bullard examines the legacy of Islamophobia endured by British Muslims.

Dangerous rhetoric

“Its roots are not
superficial, but deep, in the madrassas of Pakistan, in the
extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former
training camps of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of
Chechnya; in parts of the politics of most countries of the
Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now
in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of
life.”

“It is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such it
can’t be moderated. It can’t be remedied. It has to be stood up
to.”

Those were the words of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the
immediate aftermath of the July 7, 2005, bombings in London.

His speech, condemning jihadist extremism, was part of the
rhetoric already entrenched in the so-called “War on
Terror” which had gripped the US and Britain since the
September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. But now
they were spoken on home soil, they were relevant to citizens of
the UK and to all those in London fearing another attack on
public transport.

Blair’s words, however, marked a turning point in the perception
of British Muslim communities.

“Police were being very reticent with what they were
saying,” said Azru Merali, a founder of the Islamic Human
Rights Council, which monitors Islamophobia in the UK, in an
interview with RT.

“[The police] were very careful, as were some of the media,
and then Tony Blair came out with his speech … and all hell broke
loose.”

“So it wasn’t what happened. It wasn’t the media or the
police investigating [the bombings], it was Tony Blair about a
day later causing problems.”

The four bombers, all British citizens, had killed 52 people when
their suicide packs detonated on three underground trains and one
bus. The eldest, Mohammad Sidique Khan, was 30. The youngest,
Hasib Hussain, was just 18.

Blair’s speech, which branded Islamic extremism an “evil
ideology” with “devilish logic,” was not the
beginning of Islamophobia in Britain. As Merali notes, it is
tempting to see such events as a starting point when in fact they
are part of a “trajectory” of popular sentiment. But by
saying the acts were “founded in belief,” Blair paved
the way for a decade of confusion over terminology, and
unwittingly gave prejudice a context and legitimacy, the effects
of which are still apparent in contemporary political speeches.

Published in the autumn after the attacks, a report by the European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia, an organization which will host Blair
after his resignation as Middle East peace envoy, said the
authorities were “optimistic” that levels of hate crime
against Muslims would sink back to pre-7/7 levels following an
initial spike.

Invisible racism

But Merali believes the rise in Islamophobia in Britain was in
the making for “a long time.”

“Yes, things like 9/11 or 7/7 are important markers because
there’s been an upsurge [of prejudice], but they’re not the only
events,” Merali said.

Following any terrorist attack there is an “upsurge” of
Islamophobia, Merali said, but afterward it would level off
“at a slightly higher rate than before,” with Muslims
targeted culturally rather than physically or verbally.

“What we saw was a higher level of reporting of things like
invisible forms of racism, which could be things like
discrimination in the workplace,” said Merali.

In the decade since the 7/7 attacks, which has seen ongoing
conflict in the Middle East, the rise of the Islamic State
jihadist group has triggered fresh debate over the terminology of
terror and Islam.

After the Tunisian shootings on June 29, which left 30 Britons
dead, Prime Minister David Cameron called on the media and the
public to stop using the name “Islamic State” because
the extremist group “had nothing to do with Islam.”

The call, however, seemed at odds with Cameron’s earlier
speeches, which blamed British Muslims for “quietly
condoning” extremist and radical thought. Cameron seems to
be toeing a precarious rhetorical line between distancing himself
from Blair’s dangerous anti-extremist sentiment, while still
trying hold Muslims publicly accountable.

One poll picked up by media outlets even claimed
the majority of the British public associated the word
“Muslim” with the word “terrorism,” more often
than they did “religion.”

Sajda Mughal was on the Underground train bombed just outside
Kings Cross Station on July 7, 2005. As a Muslim and an
anti-Islamophobia campaigner she rejects the idea the Muslim
population should apologize for the actions of extremists.

“Extremism and terrorism are not ‘Muslim problems,’ nor
should the Muslim community be made responsible for the attitudes
and actions of an unrepresentative minority,” she told RT.

“It is unfair to ask all Muslims to apologize for the acts of
a small minority of people. We hear this frustration when we
speak to Muslim youth through our work at JAN Trust (her women’s
charity which helps tackle radicalization), often they say, ‘Why
do we have to apologize for the acts of a small minority?’ When
Anders Breivik killed 77 innocent young people or Dylann Storm
Roof shot innocent black people dead, no one asked white males to
apologize.”

Surveillance state

The mixed messages sent out by politicians are mirrored by
equally impenetrable new anti-terror measures which have become
more stringent and broad-reaching over the past 10 years.

The PREVENT program, part of the government’s
wider CONTEST counter-terror strategy, has cost millions of
pounds to implement and aims to tackle radicalization of
vulnerable individuals.

But rather than present an inclusive and safe environment for
people to speak out against radicalization, it has become
divisive and left individuals in fear of persecution.

“It’s completely taken the United Kingdom back a decade, if
not worse, in terms of how racial relations work,” Merali
told RT. “Not really just about Muslims, it’s had an effect
on everybody else.”

“People were already feeling the brunt of police surveillance
before [7/7],” she added.

“Unfortunately I have to say with considerable justification
that the fear that we’re seeing now in our community was already
there over 10 years ago. Often you’d get cases of people
utilizing that and really settling personal grudges by reporting
people to the police.”

In the past weeks and months, however, the scope of new measures
brought in by Home Secretary Theresa May has become increasingly
apparent. The effects of anti-terror legislation are now felt by
individuals from all backgrounds who are legally obliged to
report their co-workers, pupils and associates.

Advocacy group CAGE, which has campaigned extensively on the
excesses of the war on terror, predicted the PREVENT program
would result in some “moderates” being reclassified as
“extremists” and would unfairly target Muslims.

Its report criticizing PREVENT said it would cause
widespread discontentment in the Muslim community and was likely
to discourage individuals from cooperating with the authorities.
Its predictions are now being echoed by other critics of the
scheme, who believe vulnerable individuals are less likely to
talk to their compatriots for fear they would be reported to the
police.

“Year on year you see experiences get worse and worse,”
Merali said. The rhetoric of both politicians and the media has
contributed to a “very, very negative experience” for
British Muslims, she added.

Though she admits that change cannot happen until the authorities
“take a long hard look at themselves,” there has been a
movement to tackle communities who feel ostracized and would not
trust the authorities to investigate their concerns.

Moving forward

RT spoke to 7/7 survivor Sajda Mughal about her NGO, the JAN
trust, which reaches out to women in marginalized communities and
helps them to overcome social obstacles and find empowerment.
Their Web Guardians program, which was set up in
2012, helps mothers protect their children from the threat of
radicalization online.

Mughal said it took her “a long while” to “get
myself together” and return to work after the bombings, but
“these unanswered questions played on my mind daily and I was
searching for answers.”

“That’s when I knew: What better place to start than to work
with those who can make that difference – women and mothers? They
can protect their children and we can ultimately protect
society.”

While institutionalized Islamophobia threatens to push vulnerable
young people away from the authorities, Mughal’s charity helps to
educate women about the dangers of online radicalization, and
helps them to recognize when their child is under threat.

“It takes a mother on a journey,” she said,
“educating her with the practical skills to get online,
exposing her to the issue of online radicalization and equipping
her with the ability to channel their child’s grievances in a
positive manner.”

The future is less certain for Merali. She says politicians and
the media create an all-encompassing environment, which, if left
unchecked, can turn a lack of understanding into pure
discrimination.

“These institutions are powerful factors. At the end of the
day, some guy down the end of the street who doesn’t know a
Muslim can be invited by this type of environment to actually
commit an act of discrimination, or an act of hatred.”

Merali called on the media to take greater responsibility in the
way it reports on terror and extremism, “particularly [the
portrayal of] people who are marginalized and vulnerable and who
don’t have a voice.”

She added: “In the case of Muslims we’ve had well over a
decade [of discrimination] which has marked Muslims as completely
different and other.”

The rhetoric built up over the past decade, in particular, has
turned Muslims into a “subcategory” of human being, she
adds.

“We have to roll that back.”

“And really at the end of the day only the government can do
that, only the media can take on a more aggressive role and
actually critique what’s coming out of the government.”

The rhetoric used by politicians and the media has contributed to
a state which conflates the words “Muslim” and
“terrorist,” and which has seen a UK branch of
anti-Islam group Pegida – Patriotic Europeans Against the
Islamisation of the West – attempt to hold rallies.

Mughal calls for the adoption of grassroots programs by the
government to ensure marginalized and vulnerable individuals are
no longer subjected to stigma attached to their faith.

For now, though, it seems as though the rhetoric of otherness is
here to stay.

“Just some months back the #KillAllMuslims hashtag was
trending. This is appalling and should never have been the
case,” Mughal said.

“Authorities need to implement a bottom up approach. We
desperately need a united front against Islamophobia.”